On 07/04/2014 08:50 AM, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com> wrote:
>> Is there a reason for not using this in synchronous_standby_names,
>> perhaps falling back to application_name if not set?
>
> You mean that if synchronous_standby_names is an empty it automatically
> should be set to cluster_name? Or, you mean that if application_name is not
> set in primary_conninfo the standby should automatically use its cluster_name
> as application_name in primary_conninfo? I'm afraid that those may cause
> the trouble such as that standby is unexpectedly treated as synchronous one
> even though a user want to set up it as asynchronous one by emptying
> synchronous_standby_names in the master.
No, I mean that synchronous_standby_names should look at cluster_name
first, and if it's not set then unfortunately look at application_name
for backward compatibility.
Using application_name for this always seems like a hack to me, and
cluster_name is a much better fit. We should have created cluster_name
back when we created synchronous_standby_names.
--
Vik